Good move firing Cecil Bothwell! Nobody liked him anyway. Well, I thought I did, but then your courteous response that we stupid readers “don’t have enough facts to adequately assess” your decision to sack your arguably best and demonstrably most popular reporter. Where do we get off, forming opinions on this issue based on our experiences? I guess since I don’t get briefings in the Oval Office, I “don’t have enough facts” to have an opinion on the president.
I especially liked your faux-polite jab against what you perceive as his nonobjective reporting: You’d like to publish him “free from the constraints of news reporting.” Way to keep it civil! Seriously, next time Jeff Fobes and Jon Elliston want to ape politeness and civility, they should really run their letter by someone who knows the difference between politeness and disingenuous smarm.
Of course, we all know what these accusations of bias are really about: USA Today? Objective. CNN? Objective. Fortune Magazine? Objective. Asheville Global Report? Don’t you think they’re a little biased? Long story short: Kowtowing to moneyed interests = objective; taking a critical look at the status quo (aka being a journalist!) = biased.
Cecil knew the rules, and now he’s reaping the consequences of breaking them. So remember, all you “journalists”: Don’t rock the boat; let sleeping dogs lie; and leave well enough alone. What—do you think you’re getting paid to ask questions?
Would you (Mountain X) please tell us how many positive responses—letters plus calls—you’ve gotten to firing Cecil, and how many negative responses? (This is not a rhetorical question.) Thanks!
— Sequoia McDowell